you need to escape your consumer cave

if you have no use for it. What good is it?

are you serious in that you WANT to do something that is useless?

so I take it your interested in debate as youve bothered to log on to it!

I was responding to Noangst: not you

"if you can find a use for it. let me know." -T

To show uneducated people that there is more to life than the mere beliefs that they posses, this is expecially true for students in and fresh out of High School.

Helping people become autonomous and ethical is necessary. Without philosophy where would we be today? Without Socrates overturning the corrupt Greek society, where would individualism be today? Would it be existant. Hegel noted that Socrates was the synthesis between historical times for a reason.

Again, this is merely an expression of how you feel about things, nothing more. And you provide nothing in support of your feelings beyond mere an invitation to share it (exactly like a poet). And if, as in my case, a person does not share that sentiment, the sentiment is for them false. True, you can't pay the rent with William James or Wittgenstein; but neither can you pay it with Kafka, Sartre or Camus. So what is your point exactly? That to you a novel is of more USE than a treatise?

That you suffer a crisis of significant assertion goes without saying. That you confuse storytellers with philosophers goes without saying. That you are a bundle of emotions without the intellectual capacity to justify those emotions beyond biting your lip goes without saying. So please, tell us in what defensible way Notes From The Underground or Nausea is any less a poem than The Waste Land or Endymion.

Sorry for interupting you but if you were talking to NoAngst refering to KIERKEGAARDE,your the person who mentioned him!

I don't mean to nit-pick, but Kierkegaard doesn't have an E at the end. Also, I think, probably against popular belief, that story tellers (especially Kant and Nietchze) have a lot to offer to philosophy, it is just a different method of distribution. I am not saying a story is more important than a treatise, but a multitude of stories indirectly contain philosophy.

Also, T, your statement about barrel makers is illogical and a bad analogy. Many people read philosophy. Even if I am the only person in the world who reads philosophy, it takes your generalist analogy and proves it false. How can a person so well read in philosophy be so illogical?

First, it rather is popular belief that story tellers have a lot to offer to philosophy. Second, this is a bogus belief. That in a novel or metaphysical speculation but unlike a treatise what counts for or against it is imponderable; an artifice is created into which everything surprisingly fits, but the artifice itself exists only in language and the fitting itself is a function language, not fact. So what is the point beyond contemplative or entertainment value? And if the point is contemplative or entertainment value, there is a lot better reading out there (to my mind, at least) than Kant and Nietzsche.

Sorry, I meant Kierkegaard and Nietchze, not Kant.

I was waiting for a correction, i did try to correct it but that must mean t-t-t spelling is wrong too,i think,anyway. Can I just ask a question to you, why, may I ask t-t-t is so disillusioned with philosophy in the world today? I dont mean to be critical or offensive but he obviously wants to be involved in this forum and seems to be ''projecting'' his frustrations on to it. Yes I think it is quite a ligitimate claim to say 'stories' have philosophy contexts to them-why the hell not!:eek:

If you want to get technical, Plato wrote stories not Treatises. And you cannot tell me there is no philosophy in Plato.

T-T-T is in a paradox like Plato. T-T-T says you shouldn't project what is inside your own egotistical beliefs, but he does this by saying that. Plato said poets were worhless (paraphrase), but wrote in a form of prose.

Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.

Kant does not support what I said, he did not write stories (from what I understand).

Kierkegaard does support what I said, his dialectical style contians many stories.

Big difference.

Only metaphysical speculation. The idea of "the Good" is logically the same as the idea of "the Underground Man"; both are ways of looking at the world for which no ponderable evidence exists. Allegory of the Cave? Again: Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.

"Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next." -NoAngst

Please explain this for me.

YES this is an interesting consept!

Thank you all for keeping this discussion clean and respectful.

In my opinion Philosophy isn't something to study at all. Philosophy is something that's realized with the awakening of mankind and the discovery of that Genius within. It all has to start with desire, and productive members of this forum are here because they desire to be. It goes far beyond textbook Philosophy and has a lot to do with Human Relations.

Book knowledge and formal education do not constitute Genius.

Never stop growing and never give up on your own Philosophy. Philosophy isn't just something to discuss either, it's something that shines out of you and reflects back to you, that which you reflect into it.

Hope you stick around T-T-T as this forum unfolds. You may find some interesting things here and quite possibly make a friend or two along the way.

Thanks again fellas for keeping it clean. I'm in the process of writing rules for the forum. I'll update them in the annoncements soon.

Also, why doesn't T-T-T start with a Thread in the Branches of Philosophy that is of interest. This is an introduction forum so please introduce yourself and let's talk Philosophy.

This is basically an extended metaphor. Of course we understand the point and are likely convinced of its truth. But is it a truth or a story told in such a way that its putative force rests only on recognition and plausibility?

Consider: On cold, winter nights, porcupines will sometimes huddle together to share body heat against the weather. But they must be careful doing this so as not to poke each other with their quills. Now the same may be said about human society; that we need to live together and work toward a common good, but we must take care not to infringe upon our neighbors.

While the first example apparently illustrates and lends force to the second, the fact of the matter is that porcupines do not exhibit the behavior described; they are basically loners who shun their own kind. Yet the fact of such description is irrelevant to the assumed truth of the second; mere plausibility is enough to provide putative force to the point being made about society. And so it is with the Allegory of the Cave; the mind believes it is thinking, but it is only passing from one metaphor to the next; you are convinced of "the Good" because of the plausibility of the metaphors, not by any reasoned argument that "the Good" exists in fact.